Don't you tolerance and acceptance specialists understand that the Religion of Peace Muslims are under orders by the words of their god written down by Mohammed to be highly offended by the touch of unclean things...like women.

Shaking hands is what is done. No American woman, if it's Hillary or Condi or if it's Michelle or Laura, should put up with that. People are entitled to their religious convictions but it's a bit like saying... "I tried not to speak but I had to speak and it's not my fault I broke my vow of silence." You have a vow of silence, get a different job. Won't shake hands with foreign women, same thing.

FYI ...In Christianity there is no wall between men and women since all receive the same new spiritual birth into a new family that loves them equally. That is the radical nature of a religion of Grace compared to religions of Law.

Anyway, Indonesia is a very large country with a wide variety in the practice of Islam, and the bulk of the criticism, you will learn if you RTFA, is coming from Indonesians who don't agree with his stance on handshaking.

In Christianity there is no wall between men and women since all receive the same new spiritual birth into a new family that loves them equally.

St. Paul didn't get that memo:

1 Corinthians 14:34-5: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Spend a lot of time in Indonesia? Ever meet one? They have liberal, conservative, radical and reactionary Muslims there, as well as Christians and Buddhists. It is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic state.

I assume you'll spend a lot of time trying to find a true Scotsman too.

Gabriel...St Paul wrote that memo. The misunderstanding is yours and some legalistic Christians. But don't let them scare you. Women are 100% equal.Ask Sarah Palin, the scary Christian Woman who is likely our next President.

New "Hussein" Ham...I hope you are kidding. That old Adam is first and Eve is only his bad servant that tricked Adam to sin argument is the Legalist's assertion that ignores the New Testament imaugurated in the sacrificed blood of Christ. Things changed for Christian women forever after that. Trust me, I read the Book.

In fact, the women of the early Church, and the bishops and popes from the early Church, and all through the centuries, none of them "got that memo" either that women are supposed to shut the hell up and mind their own damn business.

The early Church did not interpret those words of St. Paul to mandate the oppression of women, even though fundamentalists, including secular anti-Christian fundamentalists, like to use such biblical passages as a weapon to falsely smear the Church.

Rather than such a facile and intellectually lazy reading of scripture as we see used here by "Gabriel Hanna" (such a discredit to both names), the Church actually bothered to consider Paul's words in context, including not only what was going on in Corinth at the time (which included a number of petty squabbles, necessitating Paul's intervening and writing a letter to address those problems), but most especially reading such words in the context of the entirety of the the Bible and the faith, and more specifically, in the light of Jesus Christ.

And in that proper context, Christians not only treated women as the moral equals of men, they exalted not a few of them in a manner that was unheard of at the time.

You're confusing God's eyes with the eyes of worldly/earthly institutions. The pain in childbirth is punishment on this Earth (just as man gets a punishment of heavy toil for food).

In Judaism for instance, a mitzvah (the fulfillment of a law or performance of a good deed) is worthy when done by a man or a woman (a woman's good deed/mitzvah is not less worthy in the eyes of the Lord). There are many mitzvot that men or women share, but even in the ones they perform separately (such as the number of daily prayers obligated to each) are still counted as blessed deeds reflective of that person's soul.

(And even in the Bible, the fact that there are female prophetesses and females who can communicate with divine representatives (angels) shows that the female soul is not diminished).

As for the conception of marriage - it is that a man and woman in a marital union recreates the divine image and that the relationship btw. the two ought to be governed not only by love but by 'shalom bayit' (literally translating to household peace) and not some sort of domestic tyranny - either of husband tyrannizing wife, or wife tyrannizing husband (the Talmud, for instance, states that a man should honor his wife more than he honors himself and love her as he loves himself). At it's finest, it is a deep bond, a deep union of two human souls.

But the equality of women is not derived from the Bible, any more than the immorality of slavery is, and it is silly and ahistorical to pretend that it is. The Bible says a lot of things--if it were as obvious as you make it out to be there wouldn't be so many denominations.

who is likely our next President.

As highly as I think of her, as unfairly as I think she is treated, I am far from convinced she should be President, or run for President, but that's a different conversation.

The Irish Church while the Brecon Laws were in effect treated men and women as essentially equal. Women held almost the same position in the church as the men did. During the Middle Ages there were nunneries and monasteries that were joined together and the leadership of each held he same rights. The Shakers and Quakers held the men and women equal.

@ Gabriel...Thanks for the intelligence of your response. We may have to agree to disagree. Scripture also says that Women have always been the most hated target of the Evil One because they procreate the men who are his enemy, which includes the baby born in Bethlehem on Christmas. Many religious institutions have pandered to an easy hatred of women, but the Apostle Paul was writer that put an end to that anti-woman tradition and even said marriage of a man and a woman was God's parable of Christ's love for His Church that he died for, and thus Paul puts a women into the most favored status possible.

You don't address the first part of my earlier comment. Your notion of equality has only to do with who has the capacity to exercise more power on Earth.

Interestingly (but unsurprisingly) so many of those Biblical women - Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, among others - often said, thought, and acted independently of their husbands and did not wait around for orders in what to do, but just did what they knew to be right. Doesn't strike you so much as people who are ruled in the sense you're perhaps thinking of - awaiting orders perhaps or not knowing what to do unless their husbands told them. (Again, when it comes to words, deeds, mitzvot, ethical choices - every human soul has free will, and everyone's decisions in these matters is given equal weight in their ethical/spiritual ramifications. The husband does not rule his wife's soul.)

"Doesn't strike you so much as people who are ruled in the sense you're perhaps thinking of - awaiting orders perhaps or not knowing what to do unless their husbands told them."

I think that's a very limited definition of being ruled.

I think "ruled" in this context means that women are to do what their husbands command (not necessarily be unthinking dolts waiting commands such as a robot might).

In this context, I think it is clear that what is meant is that women are to accede to their husband's decisions in all matters that they might disagree upon.

The principle being that when a wife and a husband disagree on a given topic or decision ... then it is the husband who will make the final decision and it is the wife who will respect that decision (and not, for example, gripe about it or be hostile or nag).

Thanks for the intelligence of your response. We may have to agree to disagree.

That's Kool and the Gang.

Many religious institutions have pandered to an easy hatred of women

I don't think these came about because of hatred of women. The chattel status of women is something that seems to come very naturally to humankind. Men are stronger and more aggressive, and human children are pretty helpless, and I think that's all it takes to get started. Of course, saying it comes NATURALLY is not the same as saying it is RIGHT.

thus Paul puts a women into the most favored status possible.

This theological high status didn't translate very well into real-life status--but as you said, we agree to disagree...

Thanks for correcting and making fun of my typo. I still think it was good that Michelle help bridge the gap between the archaic and the modern. And I meant to write that at the end of the semester various students often shake my hand, and according to my memory a female Muslim student thanked me for a helpful class and shook my hand. Actually I usually have a variety of Muslim students from counties ranging from Africa to Malaysia, and so am aware of the differences and tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in these countries.

"Men have broad chests and narrow hips; accordingly they possess wisdom. Women have narrow chests and broad hips. Women ought to be domestic; the Creation reveals it, for they have broad backsides and hips, so that they should sit still."

He wrote some 500 years ago -- which means that Muslims are only half a millennium behind the Christian West.

In this context, I think it is clear that what is meant is that women are to accede to their husband's decisions in all matters that they might disagree upon.

You are oversimplifying matters. For one thing, if what the husband wants to do is morally/ethically wrong or morally weak or even not beneficial to the household, then no, the wife is not to accede to his wishes even if he might disagree with her. She has her own judgment in these matters too.

Look at one of the Biblical stories highlighting this, for instance - see the situation with Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. Sarah tells him that Hagar and Ishmael must leave the household (after Ishmael's behaves badly towards Isaac); the Bible does not record Abraham as arguing back or saying "Woman, I'm the boss of thee"; Abraham is distressed about it and turns to God, who tells Abraham to listen to his wife.

Big Mike...Luther was a screwed up and feisty German priest that started the Catholic Church's reformation, but he is not considered a Christian Prophet. As you must know, Luther was also the worst anti-semite German author until Hitler came close to matching him.

I still think it was good that Michelle help bridge the gap between the archaic and the modern.

There's a fine line between that and needlessly antagonizing people with different cultural norms. There's the famous story of Queen Victoria washing her hands in her teacup at a state dinner, when visiting non-European royalty had just done it. I think it might have been better had the First Lady not been the one to offer to shake, but who knows, perhaps that's what she did. At any rate, enough Indonesians think that minister is a reactionary jerk that I think it is clear that the First Lady did the right thing.

Actually I usually have a variety of Muslim students from counties ranging from Africa to Malaysia, and so am aware of the differences and tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in these countries.

I think we spend a lot of time hyper-focused on what the Bible asks of women and totally ignore what burdens are placed on men. Why else quote the bits about being submissive and skip the "die for her" part?

And the Bible does say specifically that in God there is no Jew nor Greek, Male nor Female, Slave nor Free... paraphrased by me, but specifically there in each pairing.

I don't think that it can be honestly disputed that the New Testament said that women shouldn't teach men, but it also says that a woman shouldn't be under the spiritual authority of a man who isn't her husband. In other words, men aren't supposed to teach women *either*. But younger women are supposed to look to elder women. So the old chauvinist up there pounding his pulpit about women staying in their place is acting contrary to scripture. And the feminized churches with their lady ministers, I'm convinced, are doing just as poor a job teaching men about their role.

see the situation with Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. Sarah tells him that Hagar and Ishmael must leave the household...

An incident that to modern sensibilities does not reflect well on Sarah, as she nagged Abraham to drive Hagar and Ishmael out to starve. Of course it all makes perfect sense in the days when women were chattel--why shouldn't Hagar think she is superior to Sarah when she is bearing sons to Abraham, and when Sarah finally has a son why shouldn't she get her own back, and protect her offspring by eliminating a rival? Parallels can be found in the stories of Rachel and Leah and in the story of Samuel's mother Hannah.

Similarly, you can spill a lot of ink about Middle Eastern notions of hospitality to and protection of strangers lodging in one's home, but still Lot sent his daughters out to raped, and the Lord considered him righteous enough to delay the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah on his behalf--though Lot's wife didn't come out so well.

And there it is--every generation has to adapt the Bible to its notions of morality, and not the other way around. Large segments of the Muslim world DO see it the other way around, and that's why we have Islamic terrorism.

I don't think that it can be honestly disputed that the New Testament said that women shouldn't teach men

Well, it's a little stronger than THAT, but that's really all I was getting at, that Christian practice today, for the most part, doesn't follow those prescriptions.

but it also says that a woman shouldn't be under the spiritual authority of a man who isn't her husband. In other words, men aren't supposed to teach women *either*.

Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first, and Paul said explicitly that a wife should ask her husband.

Anyway, it is good that Christians now understand their Bible so much better than they did for the last two thousand years, if your description is correct. Or that they ignore the parts that don't fit in with contemporary morality, as I would have it.

"As you must know, Luther was also the worst anti-semite German author until Hitler came close to matching him."

Oh, bull shit.

Luther was better toward the Jews than most people were, defending them in sermons against the charge that they, in particular, wouldn't take care of the pregnant Mary or any of the other evil Jew stereotypes. His infamous pamphlet was in response to a flurry of Jewish evangelism. Any convert away from Christianity was a refutation of salvation itself. What crime could be more severe than taking away someone's salvation and sending them to hell?

Calvinists comfort themselves with the "they were never saved anyhow, so whoop-de-do" but for Luther it was that stark.

Yes we get it, Ann must HATE Muslim men for pointing out their psychoses regarding women. Muslim men must subjugate women because they are their for the subjugation after all. 21st century Islamic males are no different then rapacious 19th century American men who thought nothing of raping the land, almost bringing the bison to extinction. Fortunately Western man has moderated his savage impulses.

When people meet and greet. We don't have sex immediately upon meeting in our culture, right? I mean, other than a fringe element.

In large swathes of Europe it's standard practice to meet somebody by kissing both cheeks. Nobody thinks it's unclean or insane behavior to do so. But you do seem to be a water carrier for Islamic psychoses.

Luther loved Jews so much he got them expelled from Saxony and tried to get them expelled from Brandenburg.

His infamous pamphlet was in response to a flurry of Jewish evangelism.My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward.

Second, that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never use them differently.

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father *Hebel Vorik* as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God's name, yet called him Baal.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God's Son *Hebel Vorik,* and thus also call his Father that. He cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name-from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God's honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

Come on, Synova. Just accept the man for what he was and don't try to pretend he was something else.

Obama must be such a secretive secret Muslim that his wife doesn't know know to touch Muslim men with her cooties.

If memory serves, the Celtic church follow Brehon laws until the Synod of Whitby in the late 600s marked the Celtic systems falling in line with Rome. It's been awhile since I studied that, so I could be off.

Mr. Hanna (which actually was a Hebrew name (meaning "favored by God") before it was Scottish) --

Thank you for that fine example of "how not to read scripture" -- looking at a single passage in isolation, completely out of context of the entirety of the letter, much less the context of the entirety of the Bible, with a total ignorance of the underlying extra-Biblical, historical circumstances that surrounded Paul's writing of the letter, all so that you can push your fallacious idea.

Do you do the same with interpreting laws? If so, you would make an excellent judge.

Beth - why do you lefties always feel the need to cite some odd Christian behavior? Right now in 2010 Muslims are the ones literally killing innocent people, stoning women, instituting sharia law. You lefties are just pathological when it comes to defending Islam.

my wife is from a continent where, according to fls, women don't shake hands with men, but she does when she's here at least.

1. Shun-yü K'wan said, 'Is it the rule that males and females shall not allow their hands to touch in giving or receiving anything?' Mencius replied, 'It is the rule.' K'wan asked, 'If a man's sister-in-law be drowning, shall he rescue her with his hand?' Mencius said, 'He who would not so rescue the drowning woman is a wolf. For males and females not to allow their hands to touch in giving and receiving is the general rule; when a sister-in-law is drowning, to rescue her with the hand is a peculiar exigency.'

And there it is--every generation has to adapt the Bible to its notions of morality

It's an interesting relationship that goes both ways. Because there are many things in the Bible that shaped our present day morality (or rather, our evolving morality over the centuries). Not only the 10 commandments, which are the most well known, but various laws and precedents against, for instance, human sacrifice :) But even as early as the Talmud there were things that were 'softened', you might say, though not directly opposed to Biblical commandments (for example the Talmud makes capital punishment pretty much impossible to ever be carried out, by adding so many stringent conditions that must be met for a murder to be considered punishable by execution).

Just regarding some of those Biblical details:as she nagged Abraham to drive Hagar and Ishmael out to starve.

She issues one command/request regarding Hagar and Ishmael, not a repeated one (or nagging), and she did not say anything on the manner in which Hagar and Ishmael were to leave the house (all it says is that Abraham gave them the bread and waterskin). And Sarah herself was not treated as chattel (Hagar was a servant though, Sarah's servant actually, and Sarah gave her to Abraham years after they were married... but even a maidservant/slave such as Hagar is addressed directly by an angel, and is not necessarily a spiritually lowly person).

but still Lot sent his daughters out to rapedIf I remember right he didn't wind up sending them out; he goes out of his house himself and speaks to the men of Sodom, at risk to his own life (he tries to appease them with the thought that they can have his daughters, but winds up handing over neither daughters nor guests - and he's pulled back into the safety of his home). Later he flees with his wife and daughters (though as you point out, his wife doesn't make it). [As for Biblical children - Lot's daughters are not threatened in this manner because they're women per se (Biblical children in general, like Isaac, are often very obedient to their parents, and their parents often make hugely important decisions of one kind or another regarding them - including those that are potentially fatal.)]

It was taking me too long to find videos of Asians greeting each other. Japanese and Koreans traditionally bowed, Malays salamed, Indians namasted, Chinese nodded, etc. I did find a nice picture of the Thai wai.

(which actually was a Hebrew name (meaning "favored by God") before it was Scottish)

Um, no, since the Scots developed their language independently of Hebrew--and the name in Hebrew is not pronounced the same anyway, it's just transliterated similarly.

looking at a single passage in isolation, completely out of context of the entirety of the letter

The way you substantiate the charge of quoting out of context is by providing the context, which, if you do, shows that Paul was laying a general law for all congregations to follow and chastising the Conrinthians for not following it.

I note that you accuse me of quoting out of context but you don't actually provide any yourself. I'm not going to quote all those chapters here. Interested readers can look for themselves and judge between us.

all so that you can push your fallacious idea.

Where was this equality practiced in the Christian world for 1800 years, if it's so obviously derived from the Bible?

That's the historical context. Men and women were no legally or socially equal in the Christian world until the last hundred years.

If my argument is indeed "fallacious", then you can give the counterexamples. Prove that women did have legal and social equality with men in the Christian world, and that the Bible generally supports the legal and social equality of women.

Good catch with Mencius, but my wife isn't a Confucian. You made a statement about today's cultural norms; your quote has made a case for what they WERE. But there's been a few changes in China since the days of Mencius. Just like there have been changes in Christianity since St Paul, who lived hundreds of years AFTER Mencius.

It is entirely possible that men and women don't shake hands in China as a general rule; I can ask my wife about it. I do know that Chinese men and women shake the hands of Americans HERE, but it may be a case of "When in Rome."

@fls - the custom of bowing in Japan has nothing to do with gender. They're perfectly happy to shake hands with westerners of either sex and generally bow to each other, again without regard to sex. Touching unrelated women isn't a widespread cultural taboo in East Asia and never has been, as far as I know. If you have been informed otherwise, I would be curious to hear the details.

Have you perused Walker's ruling on Proposition 8? On page 73 one of his findings of fact is

The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.

and you can check his citations.

So, when you made your inane statment about the orientation of the Sodomites you were either

a) totally ignorant that "gay" and "straight" are identities that only make sense in modern culture, or

b) you knew and didn't care, because you though it helped you score points on people

This sort of thing is why I have so little respect for your commentary. You do this ALL THE TIME on disparate subjects, whether it's sexual selection, the Y chromosome, whatever.

Look, I'm a jerk when I argue and probably no one knows that better than you. And I'm sure there are facts I get wrong and arguments I don't understand and things I don't read properly and subjects I have no business having an opinion on, we're all human.

But I will tell you what I NEVER do, and that is argue in bad faith. I do not make arguments that I believe are wrong or fallacious to score debating points or because I have a crude cartoon of my opponents in my head that I'm actually responding to.

I'm not a expert on the Bible or ancient times or gayness, but I know that in ancient times engaging in gay sex was not thought of as establishing an identity. I don't know much about heredity and development, but I do know that women don't inherit Y chromosomes and thus lesbian orientation is not determined by the father the way sex is. I would never argue these things as a way of scoring on people because I know these arguments are bogus.

Either you don't know and don't care enough to educate yourself, or you know and don't care about being honest.

And what moral father, today, would do such a thing, even if he didn't follow through on it?

Not saying that a moral father today would; all I wished to point out is that as the event unfolds in the text it looks more like Lot is stalling (else he would have just spoken through the door and nudged his daughters out the door, rather than go out himself and then resist them as they pushed up closer to him and the door) and hyperbole (to stress how important his guests were to him).

Interestingly Lot himself is not considered the most exemplary of men; he is definitely a cut above the men of Sodom in his conduct, but there are various places in the text which paint him as a person susceptible to corruption, decadence, and moral softness - one reason he was attracted to the city of Sodom to begin with.

An interesting foot note to the variance between theory and practice of the Christian understanding of the equality of Christian women to Christian men is in the State of Georgia. Georgia had been having been awakened by Methodist circuit rider preachers (including both Wesley brothers themselves in the mid 1730s) and Camp ground Meetings. So the State of Georgia's legislature enacted and its voters adopted a Constitutional provision that Women had the equal rights to men in owning their own property whether single or married. That was in 1815. It sounds innocuous, but it was "the first known state on earth" to enact that into its legal system. To this day, Georgia lawyers scratch their heads in wonder at deeds prepared in other states requiring a recital that a female is single or a married woman. What does that have to do with anything? Women have always been the same as people in owning property here, like Paul had said they were in Spiritual matters 1700 years earlier.

So, when you made your inane statment about the orientation of the Sodomites you were either

a) totally ignorant that "gay" and "straight" are identities that only make sense in modern culture, or

b) you knew and didn't care, because you though it helped you score points on people

Actually I was thinking of an interview I heard with the abominable Shirley Phelps-Roger the other day. The interviewer made the point that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. So Shirley was quick to quote Luke 17, arguing that Jesus's reference to Sodom was an implicit condemnation of homosexuality.

So that thought was just bouncing around my skull, until tonight.

Sorry if it failed to live up to your standards.

You made a statement about today's cultural norms; your quote has made a case for what they WERE.

Believe it or not, that was my point in saying "traditionally there's no intergender touching in Asia."

I couldn't say there traditionally was no intragender touching in parts of Asia -- that would be pedantic if not wrong.

Orthodox Jews don't touch members of the other gender either, unless they are relatives or spouses. It is not about women being "unclean." It is part of a modesty code which dictates that certain parts of the body are covered in public and that unrelated men and women are not alone together.

(I don't know what it's about in Islam, but I guess it is similar, because Islam and Christianity have both adopted huge chunks of Jewish theology and practice, but with their own twists.)

I think one problem here is that the guy broke his own rules, then tried to blame Michelle Obama for that. That's slimy.

Another problem is that Michelle should not have "reached out." What is the matter with these people that they are so boneheaded about local customs and diplomatic niceties? You don't bow to the Emperor of Japan. You don't touch the Queen of England. You don't give cheesy CDs to the PM of England. You get a decent Russian translation before doing a photo-op with a red button. There are tons of people in the State Dept who know all the appropriate protocol, so I must conclude that the Obamas just don't give a shit.

the Apostle Paul .... said marriage of a man and a woman was God's parable of Christ's love for His Church that he died for, and thus Paul puts a women into the most favored status possible.

That's very Jewish. The marriage relationship is an imitation of God's love for the People Israel. Married sex is extra holy on Shabbat, which is an imitation of God resting after creating the universe.

You might notice that all of your quotes are about wives being “subject” (however you interpret that) to their husbands. It says nothing about being subject to Bob at work, or Bill down the street. There are similar requirements for how men should treat their wives.

I don't think that it can be honestly disputed that the New Testament said that women shouldn't teach men, but it also says that a woman shouldn't be under the spiritual authority of a man who isn't her husband. In other words, men aren't supposed to teach women *either*. But younger women are supposed to look to elder women. So the old chauvinist up there pounding his pulpit about women staying in their place is acting contrary to scripture. And the feminized churches with their lady ministers, I'm convinced, are doing just as poor a job teaching men about their role.

"The Bible is pretty clear that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels; they settled for Lot's daughters."

Actually that's incorrect. The mob refused to settle for Lot's offer of his daughters and the crowd was struck blind by the angels in Lot's house and all in Lot's home were protected from the mob.

Nor is the text particularly clear that homosexuality was the primary sin involved, although tradition teaches that it was. It is perfectly clear that some form of sexual debauchery was at least part of the problem.

That particular story, which has context set several chapters prior to the events in question, is absolutely loaded with theology beyond the obvious, and is worthy of careful study for anyone that really wants to try to understand what's going on.

In any event, I don't know that it is despicable for this guy to not want to touch a female (Mr.s Obama) in the context of his religious beliefs. This sort of thing is often used to help people (men) control their passions. His excusing it the way he did is pretty lame though.

I see it as similar to me avoiding pornographic images, and my definition of pornographic images would probably be far more stringent than that of most people here. Doesn't bother me to shake a woman's hand though, or give a hug. Does give me a little twinge of attraction though, have to own that one.

Michelle is an American, acting as an American. The guy was free to decline her offered hand, and substitute his own greeting gesture.

But why penalize Michelle for following American custom? The tradition in our American culture is that in social situations, the woman takes the initiative when it comes to shaking hands. Although many American men are unaware of this custom.

If Obama is criticized for following host country custom, and Michelle is criticized for following US customs, then how are they supposed to act?

The interviewer made the point that Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

He didn't condemn securities fraud either. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have preached against it if it had existed then.

So Shirley was quick to quote Luke 17, arguing that Jesus's reference to Sodom was an implicit condemnation of homosexuality.

Since there wasn't a gay identity at that time, it wouldn't have made any sense for Jesus to condemn people for "being gay". But men having sex men has always been going on, and its been immoral for Jews as far back as their religion goes.

So that thought was just bouncing around my skull, until tonight.

Typically for you, not apropos of anything anyone HERE actually said. You thought you'd tweak the fundies by saying the Sodomittes must have been "straight". Which, as I pointed out, is stupid on a number of levels.

If Obama is criticized for following host country custom, and Michelle is criticized for following US customs, then how are they supposed to act?

You know I think this IS a very good point. Pick one or the other and argue for it, instead of saying whatever the Obamas do is wrong.

My thought is that the Obamas, when they travel, should follow the host country's customs in any reasonable way that doesn't compromise American values, with the priority being to make people comfortable.

In Indonesia there isn't a custom about men not shaking womens' hands, it's just something that reactionary jackasses refuse to do, so I don't see that the First Lady did anything wrong.